page 1

Making With Others: working with textile craft groups as a research method

Dr Amy Twigger Holroyd, Emma Shercliff a.t.holroyd@leeds.ac.uk School of Design, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Abstract

This paper discusses the activity of making with others as a means of researching the

experience of making, with a particular focus on textiles. It draws on the methods used by

both authors in our doctoral research projects, relating to hand-stitching (Shercliff) and

hand-knitting (Twigger Holroyd).

Making with others has a long history in textiles. Indeed, the fact that group textile

making activities are so prevalent supports their potential use within research into, and

for, creative textile practices. However, we both discovered a distinct lack of documented

examples to refer to as we developed our own research methodologies.

We have found that running workshops and making activities specifically for a research

project – as we did – differs from other established and emerging methods which involve

participants in research. In documenting and discussing several group making activities

which we carried out in the course of our research, we seek to draw attention to the

adaptability and variability of these methods, to establish a critical dialogue around them,

argue for their value, and provide examples which we hope will be of use to other

researchers.

KEYWORDS: making with others, textiles, research methods, documenting examples

Introduction

This paper discusses the activity of making with others as a means of researching the

experience of making, with a particular focus on textiles. It draws on the methods used by

both authors in our doctoral research projects, relating to hand-stitching (Shercliff) and

page 2

hand-knitting (Twigger Holroyd). In documenting six of the group making activities

which we carried out in the course of our research, and describing four of them in detail,

we seek to establish a critical dialogue around these methods, argue for their value, and

provide examples which we hope will be of use to future researchers.

Making with others – whether in social groups or formal workshops, working on

individual or collective projects – has a long history in textiles. For example, there is

evidence of people getting together to knit in groups since at least the eighteenth century

(Rutt, 1987). Today, we see people making textiles together in a wide range of contexts:

in organised guilds and informal groups, via one-off projects and ongoing initiatives, and

creating a wide range of work, from the useful to the frivolous to the intentionally

political.

Before we began our respective PhD studies, we both had experience of running

workshops and facilitating projects. These experiences directly inspired and informed our

research topics and methods. The fact that group textile making activities are so prevalent

supports their potential use within research into, and for, creative textile practices. The act

of making within a group is familiar, both to individual practitioners who are increasingly

undertaking practice-led research, and to enthusiasts, who may be interested in taking

part. However, we both found a distinct lack of documented examples to refer to as we

developed our own research methodologies.

Through discussing and reflecting on our research activities, and the rich material they

enabled us to access, we have become convinced of the value of making with others as a

research method. We have also discovered the variety contained within this umbrella

heading; even within our two doctoral studies, we have identified six distinct strategies,

which have much in common, yet vary from one another in multiple ways. Thus, ‘making

with others’ is a versatile method that can be adapted according to the variables presented

by diverse research questions and contexts. In order to develop a critical understanding of

this area of activity, we feel it is important to communicate what we have done and share

the strengths and benefits of these methods, along with the challenges we have met.

Related methods

Before describing our activities in detail, we will briefly outline other research methods

page 3

which overlap with our own. These methods offered starting points for the development

of our ideas, and highlighted critical issues.

While practice-based research in art and design has a relatively short history, it has a

growing literature, which offers a logical starting point for any researcher undertaking

work in this area. However, the majority of this literature is concerned with individual

practice, where making is used as a reflective tool to examine the practice itself (e.g. Gray

& Malins, 2004; de Freitas, 2007). Although we both have individual creative practices,

we deliberately set out to use making with others as a central activity in our research, and

so needed to look elsewhere for relevant methods.

The use of focus groups is common when seeking to explore the lived experience of a

particular group (Bryman, 2004). Twigger Holroyd’s first activity, in which the

participants knitted together while discussing a number of open-ended questions about

their experiences of knitting, could be described as a making-led focus group. However,

the remainder of our activities were quite different, in that the insights we gained

emerged directly from the making processes, rather than verbal questions.

This emphasis on the processes of making corresponds to the concept of ‘creative

research methods’, developed by David Gauntlett, building on previous work in artistic

practice, visual sociology and visual methods. He describes them as ‘methods in which

people express themselves in non-traditional (non-verbal) ways, through making ... a

physical thing’ (Gauntlett, 2007, p. 25). Gauntlett’s work highlights the value of making

with the hands, and thus offers an important reference for our participatory textile-based

research. However, his projects have used making as a method of investigating ‘external’

questions, such as identity. In contrast, we sought to use making with others to explore

themes inherent to the making process.

The anthropological approach of participant observation can be an effective method of

investigating first-hand the experience of making with others. Trevor Marchand’s

extensive fieldwork explores the on-site embodied learning of practical skills through his

own apprenticeship to building (Marchand, 2001; 2009) and fine woodwork trades

(Marchand, 2010). This usually involves the researcher joining and being accepted by an

existing group; Shercliff used this method in the first of our examples. However,

establishing a new group, or running workshops specifically for the research project (as

we did in the rest of the activities that we describe) differs in that it places the researcher

page 4

as both facilitator and participant. The researcher’s specialist knowledge about making

drives the workshop activity.

This dual role, of facilitator and participant, can also be identified in action research, a

method developed in educational contexts and the social sciences and often used by

practitioner-researchers. Key to action research is the involvement of the researcher and

participants in projects that aim to improve their situation through the implementation of

remedial action (Robson, 1993). Although we were very interested in the experiences of

the participants in our research, our intentions were not to implement change.

Finally, we note that our activities could bear some relation to co-design methods, which

extend user-centred design approaches to include participants as partners in the process of

designing products, services and experiences (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). However, the

emphasis in co-design is generally on producing a more successful outcome. In contrast,

our interest lies in learning more about the processes of making. Although Twigger

Holroyd’s project involved participants in the development of a new knitting resource –

and thus can be described as co-design – the research primarily aimed to investigate how

participants experienced designing and making items for themselves to wear.

There are therefore several established and emerging methods which share characteristics

with our approach to making with others. However, there is no single established

approach that embraces all of our activities, and we feel it is worthwhile exploring the

intersection of our methods to further develop our critical understanding of the benefits of

making with others as a distinct research approach.

Our projects

Next we will profile examples, drawn from our PhD research projects, which illustrate a

range of activities that fall within the broad spectrum of ‘making with others’. While

these examples have many similarities, it is important to emphasise that they were used

within projects that were quite different in terms of context and focus. Therefore, before

describing the examples in detail, we will briefly outline the aims of each project.

page 5

Project profile: Shercliff

My research investigated the nature of embodied knowledge acquired and practised

through the rhythms and patterns of hand-stitching processes. The micro context

concerns the dynamic relationship between practical skill, the body and its proximity to

tools, materials and other people during actual experiences of making.

The research grew out of my involvement in community art projects and a curiosity to

investigate further the physical, emotional and social satisfactions expressed by

participants. Working with the premise that the skilled activity of hand-stitching concerns

more than technical ability, it explored how these activities articulate dimensions of

subjective experience. In turn, it aimed to reveal ways in which the relationship between

an individual and a group is constructed through their crafting skills.

Project profile: Twigger Holroyd

My research explored amateur fashion making as a strategy for sustainability.

Homemade clothes are often seen as sustainable, in comparison with the environmental

and social problems associated with mass-produced ʻfast fashionʼ. However, the

conversations I had with knitters while running workshops and participatory projects

suggested that their experiences of wearing homemade clothes were complex and often

ambivalent. Therefore, the research aimed to investigate these experiences.

A second layer of activity involved the development of re-knitting techniques, which could

be used by individual amateur knitters to rework garments in their wardrobes. Because

re-knitting techniques must be adapted to suit the particularities of each individual

garment, they provide an opportunity to engage with creative design. The research aimed

to investigate the impact of the experience of designing, and re-knitting, on the practices

of amateur knitters.

Comparing the projects

These brief outlines demonstrate a key difference between our projects. While they were

both concerned with making, Shercliff’s research placed an intense focus on the ‘micro

context’ of the making process: the characteristics of hand-stitching skills as they are felt

page 6

and valued by practitioners. Twigger Holroyd took a broader view, examining the

relationship between the making process and the wearing of homemade items. There

were also practical differences between the two projects: Twigger Holroyd’s research was

full-time, with the majority of making activities taking place within an intensive period of

six months or so; Shercliff’s was part-time, stretched over a period of five years,

providing the opportunity for periods of personal reflection between a series of group

making activities.

On the other hand, there are many connections. We share an ontological position: we both

drew on our previous experience as practitioners, which contributed to the design of the

research. There are epistemological similarities in that we both wanted to explore the

nature of knowledge known in and through making. We were both also interested in the

social context of making – hence the emphasis on making with groups, rather than

multiple individuals.

A further similarity, which is important to acknowledge, is that of gender: the majority of

participants in our activities were female, reflecting a wider gender imbalance in textile

craft participation. The association of textiles with femininity and domesticity has a long

and complex history (Parker, [1984] 2010), and although this was not the subject of either

project, we were both aware of gender as an important contextual issue.

Our methods

We will now turn to the practical group making activities that we undertook within these

research projects. Taking each of our projects in turn, we will describe the general

approach that was taken, identify three activities (further illustrated in Table 1), and

discuss two of these in detail.

Introduction to methods: Shercliff

As a practice-led research project, textile making figured centrally as the means by which

to conduct the enquiry and was combined with ethnographic approaches such as

participation, conversation and observation in order to examine group – and individual –

stitching activities from different perspectives.

page 7

The research activities included participation in an embroidery group with regular

monthly meetings over two years (example 1), as well as shorter making events. Some of

these were tightly planned workshops designed in response to previous experiences and

to explore a specific theme or question (e.g. example 2). Others took advantage of

opportunities, such as residencies or commissions, that arose in the course of the project

and were incorporated into the research (e.g. example 3). Documentation (video,

photographic, written and audio) aimed to capture what the stitching experience or

activity looked like, and what it felt like to be engaged in it.

Example 1: Joining in (Shercliff)

Early in my research I made contact with an embroidery group local to where my family

live. This broad familiarity made it relatively straightforward for me initially to observe

the group working together, and later to join in as a participant observer (figure 1).

I did not want the responsibility of designing and managing a project to influence my

experience of ‘joining in’, and it felt inappropriate in this context to request tasks from

participants that they might not otherwise do. As I wanted to study the personal

motivations people have to stitch in a group it was important that participants made work

independently from my interest in their activity. Additionally, as a participant in the

group, I was later able to analyse how participants were supported by, and helped to

maintain, the group’s collective goals both as a social entity and as embroiderers.

Figure 1. Example 1: collective stitching in the embroidery group. Photo: Shercliff.

page 8

Example 2: Taking a Thread for a Walk (Shercliff)

At a later stage in the research, questions arising from analysis of earlier making

experiences needed addressing; I wanted to explore people’s perceptions and

assumptions of the experience of hand-stitching. Rather than interviewing people, I hoped

that discussion prompted by their physical involvement in the stitching would provide a

closer view of making. This required participants who were comfortable reflecting on and

evaluating their experiences of creative tasks in group discussion.

One of these structured workshops, held with five research students, explored perceptions

of a hand-made aesthetic. After ranking examples I had prepared according to how

attractive they found the stitching and how well they thought the stitching functioned, I

asked each participant to stitch their own, following my instructions (figure 2). When

asked again to rank my examples, several participants had changed their perceptions,

and a rich conversation ensued concerning the means by which hand-stitching is valued.

Figure 2. Example 2: Shercliff’s example on the left; the other two are participants’ examples made following the same instructions, which were to stitch a line of parallel stitches without pulling the thread taut. Photo: Shercliff.

Introduction to methods: Twigger Holroyd

My methods built on the workshops and projects I had already undertaken within my

practice as a knitwear designer-maker. The main activity involved a group of seven

amateur knitters, who I recruited specifically for the project. The participants were

interviewed individually before taking part in a series of seven evening and full-day

page 9

workshop sessions at my studio, spaced over several months. The workshop activities

gradually shifted from group discussion whilst making (example 4), through structured

re-knitting and design tasks, to working on individual projects (example 5), with the

project culminating in the participants re-knitting items from their own wardrobes.

Further material was gathered from a wider community of knitters via an informal

participatory knitting activity which I run at music festivals each summer (example 6).

Example 5: Re-knitting studio (Twigger Holroyd)

This was the sixth of the seven sessions with the group. By this stage, we had finished

testing the re-knitting techniques, and the participants were working on their own

individual re-knitting projects. This session was much more fluid and unstructured than

the earlier workshops. At first, the participants worked in twos and threes, but as they

moved around the space, they discussed their projects with the others, creating constantly

shifting discussion groups (figure 3). The participants also referred to my extensive

collection of knitting books and used the yarn stored in the studio as a colour resource.

During this period, I behaved in a similar way to the participants, dropping in and out of

discussions. Although I was seen as an expert on the technical aspects of the re-knitting

treatments, there was no sense that their preferences and decisions should be ʻcheckedʼ

with me, as a professional designer. The participants referred to ʻacting as consultantsʼ

for each other, which encapsulates this point.

Figure 3. Example 5: participants discussing individual re-knitting projects. Photo: Twigger Holroyd.

page 10

Example 6: The Knitting Circle (Twigger Holroyd)

Since 2009, I have run a free, drop-in, communal knitting activity at summer music

festivals (figure 4). I aim for this to be an engaging and accessible activity that will

provide an enjoyable experience of knitting, embracing knitters of all abilities. The

completed pieces of knitting are left on display, growing in number as the festival

progresses. For the first few years of this activity, I asked people to ʻshare a knitting

memoryʼ on small cardboard tags, after their time spent knitting. The tags were attached

to the knitting and become part of the public display.

I started gathering these comments as a way of making the knitting activity more

engaging; however, I realised that they could be of value to my research. In 2012, I asked

participants to share their feelings about wearing homemade clothes. This strategy was

effective; it prompted conversation on the topic, and comments which recorded memories

and opinions. In 2012, 245 separate comments were written; combined with the tags from

the previous years, I gathered over a thousand responses.

Figure 4. Example 6: drop-in activity at summer music festival. Photo: Twigger Holroyd.

Comparing the examples

By reflecting on these examples, the diversity of approaches to ‘making with others’

begins to emerge. Table 1 summarises a range of attributes which can be used to compare

the activities.

page 11

Shaded examples not described in detail in main text 1.

Joi

ning

in

(She

rclif

f)

2. T

akin

g a

thre

ad

for

a w

alk

(S

herc

liff)

3. S

knitc

h dr

op-in

m

akin

g se

ssio

ns

(She

rclif

f)

4. K

nitt

ing

and

talk

ing

(T

wig

ger

Hol

royd

)

5. R

e-kn

ittin

g st

udio

(T

wig

ger

Hol

royd

)

6. T

he K

nitt

ing

Cir

cle

(T

wig

ger

Hol

royd

)

Format / group type

Community embroidery group

Groups set up for research Drop-in Group set up

for research Group set up for research Drop-in

Participants’ gender and age

Women aged mid-50s to late 80s

Students – women and one man aged 22-52

Girls and boys aged 9-15

Women aged 44 to 66

Women aged 44 to 66

Women, men, girls and boys of all ages

Type of venue Village church community hall Art schools Large public

event Researcher’s studio

Researcher’s studio

Summer open-air music festivals

Number of participants in group

14 with 7 regular members

5 Roughly 40 7 6 Hundreds in total; up to 40 at any time

Duration of session 3 hours 1-2 hours 9.5 hours 2 hours 6 hours

Around 10 hours per day; each festival runs 3-4 days

Regularity of sessions and duration of project

Weekly meetings over 2.5 years – researcher attended monthly

1st of 3 one-off sessions

One-off event running for 2 days

1st of 7 group sessions, spread over 4 months

6th of 7 group sessions, spread over 4 months

Knitting Tent visits 1-4 festivals every summer

Role of researcher

Participant-observer Facilitator Facilitator and

instructor Facilitator Co-ordinator and technical resource

Instigator (not directly involved during activity)

Researcher’s involvement in making task

Researcher joining in set tasks

Specific tasks set by researcher

Open activity overseen by researcher

Open task set by researcher

Broad brief set by researcher

Open activity set up, ‘task’ understood via signage and material

Nature of group activity

Hand-stitching large embroidered panels for village church

Hand-stitching small samples for researcher

Trying out basic hand embroidery, making small samples to display

Knitting small samples whilst talking

Developing plans for re-knitting individual garments

Contributing to shared knitting, leaving comments on tags

Nature of conversation

Informal conversation about general topics and making tasks

Focused discussion about specific themes to do with making

One-to-one instructions

Focused discussion of researcher’s open questions about making

Informal conversation about individual projects and making tasks

Informal conversation about making, some in response to prompt question

Task: individual or collective? Collective Individual Individual Individual Individual Collective

Method of data collection

Photo, audio recording and journal notes

Audio recording and pieces made

Photo and journal notes

Audio and video recording and journal notes

Photo, audio and video recording and journal notes

Hand-written tags

Focus of analysis

Words spoken and physical actions

Words spoken and pieces made

Physical actions Words spoken

Words spoken and physical actions

Words/ images written/ drawn

Table 1. Comparison of six research activities involving making with others.

page 12

There are many comparisons that can be made; we will highlight just a few, and in doing

so explain a little more about the terms we have used. There is a clear link between the

two drop-in activities (examples 3 and 6), in that the participants were not identified in

advance, and chose how long to stay. Both involved the learning of new skills; however,

in example 3 this was the main focus for the researcher, while example 6 catered for all

levels of experience in a more ‘open’ project, where participants were left to experiment

and produce whatever they wished as a contribution to the shared project. Furthermore,

the role of the researcher differs in that example 6 was designed to run without her direct

intervention.

The making activity in example 5 took on a life of its own – becoming more like the

ongoing project in example 1 – as participants gained understanding of, and confidence

in, their tasks. It takes time for researchers and participants to reach a level of intimacy,

which potentially nurtures a unique depth and quality of conversation. In these cases the

environment induced by the making activity itself facilitates ‘raw’ comments from

participants that can reveal new or unexpected insights about the making.

The workshops in examples 2 and 4 are comparable in that they were both structured to

investigate responses to a particular theme. Shercliff designed making tasks in order to

generate conversation, while Twigger Holroyd prepared specific questions to ask of

participants as they worked on an open, technically undemanding making task.

Another interesting issue, which is not apparent through discussion of the activities as

isolated entities, is their relationship to each other. We both undertook a range of making

activities, exploring our research problems from different angles in order to shed light on

particular questions and to offer an important element of triangulation. However, some of

these complementary activities were not fully planned in advance; in both projects, we

found that one group working session would give rise to new questions and new areas for

investigation that informed the design – or lack of design – of the next. While this felt, at

times, like a rather risky strategy, it allowed us to make the most of the valuable time

with our participants in terms of both practical strategies and exploration of emergent

topics.

page 13

Valuing experience

As experienced practitioners, for whom making is an integral and longstanding part of

life, it is easy for us to overlook the value of our own practices to the research. However,

it is vital that we do not take the knowledge and skills we brought to the projects for

granted; our practices shaped the initial research questions, the workshop activities and

subsequent reflection and analysis. In practical terms, our knowledge enabled us to plan

effectively, for example in terms of the tools and materials we would need, and the likely

duration of different making tasks.

Additionally, we both explored ideas through our individual making practices as the

research developed. Having spent time interviewing and observing stitchers, Shercliff

used her own making to ‘make sense’ of the information she had gathered: The notion of ‘making sense’ can not only be taken as making (in craft practices) through sensory exploration, but also as ‘sense making’ – creating critical understandings about that practice both through action and reflection on it. (Gray & Burnett, 2007, p. 22)

Her individual practice helped her to sort the data, highlight key themes, refine

questioning and suggest new areas of investigation to be explored. Moreover, her own

closeness to the making experience enabled her to notice details in what others were

doing and saying whilst making. In cases like this, the insights that arise from using and

reflecting upon one’s own experience within the research illuminate details that might

otherwise be overlooked, or even missed entirely.1

Twigger Holroyd used her own making practice to test out the re-knitting techniques on a

sample garment, keeping one step ahead of the participants. On a practical level, this

enabled her to identify problems they might encounter, and develop advice accordingly.

More importantly, it allowed her to experience the same process as the participants; this

established both a personal, ‘inside’ knowledge of the process, and a vital bond with the

group. She found that her practical expertise earned the trust of the participants, and thus

their ongoing commitment to a relatively long project.

1 Bolt (2007) makes this point using the example of David Hockney’s research into the drawing methods used by the painter Ingres. It was because of Hockney’s own practical knowledge and experience of drawing, particularly as a portrait painter, that he suspected the speed and quality of Ingres’ small sketches were not solely due to his proficiency and skill. Hockney’s own use of cameras suggested to him that Ingres had made use of similar devices. He ascertained that Ingres had used a camera obscura. This detail concerning Ingres’ working methods had until then been missed.

page 14

Strengths

We see these participatory making methods as having three key strengths. Firstly, we

both found that making supports open, constructive conversation, which helps to gain a

detailed understanding of the opinions and experiences of our participants. Others have

made similar observations; Stitchlinks (2008, p. 3) suggests that ʻbeing occupied at a

certain level appears to prevent the brain from applying its normal prejudices and

limitations, which helps to lower barriers making it easier to talk more intimatelyʼ.

Furthermore, making can slow the pace of conversation, allowing participants to give

thought to topics before contributing, rather than – as can be the case with interviews –

feeling pressured to generate an instant opinion (Gauntlett, 2007).

A second strength of the methods we have used relates to the gathering of data during the

creative activity. Rather than talking to makers about their practice retrospectively, we

were able to hear the participants’ feelings first-hand as they engaged in making.

Moreover, we were able to draw on much more than words: the spontaneous use of

practical skills allows embodied knowledge to come to the fore. Because different types

of information can be observed and gathered when making together – e.g. visual, oral,

experiential and emotional – connections between doing and thinking can be captured

simultaneously, and drawn out in informal conversation with participants.

While these group making methods are effective in accessing the knowledge that emerges

‘in the moment’ of making, they also reveal changes in perception which occur during the

process. For example, in the series of sessions Twigger Holroyd conducted, she was able

to capture the participants’ thoughts during the early workshops, when they started to

sample various techniques; as they considered their initial design ideas; during the actual

re-knitting process; and finally, after the projects were completed. Even within a single

workshop (example 2), Shercliff was able to investigate how participants’ judgements of

simple stitching tasks changed, before and after trying them out themselves.

Challenges

The main challenges of these methods relate to the multiple roles the researcher must

simultaneously perform: researcher plus facilitator, instructor, host, maker and/or

participant. When working within these multiple roles, one finds oneself both on the

page 15

outside of the experience looking in, and also at the centre of it. If the subject of research

concerns the experience of making, it remains in part inaccessible by the very fact of

being a researcher; that role requires a critical distance that in itself prevents the

experience being had fully. In his essay ‘Altogether Elsewhere’, Edmund de Waal (2002)

discusses markers of authenticity in craft practice, and although his subject is the Western

craftsman-ethnographer in foreign lands searching for authentic products and practices, it

is possible to identify with what he describes as: …the positioning of the Western craftsman-ethnographer as both ‘the man apart’, the dispassionate onlooker able to observe the goings-on rationally and impartially, and also to be the intuitive, instinctual colleague of the peasant craftsman, to crouch next to the loom or wheel and enact the pantomime of shared skills. This is the taxing position (…), the problem of ‘being there’. (de Waal, 2002, p. 185)

In our projects, we each instinctively felt our way through this conundrum. It is only now,

on reflection, that we fully appreciate the practical and methodological challenges

concerning the generation of knowledge which are associated with the dual role of

facilitator and participant. We are both interested in developing our understanding of this

issue, and aim to return to some of the related methods mentioned earlier in this paper in

future, in order to build on similar experiences from these other knowledge fields.

On a practical note, reflexive note-making after the action helps to turn the making

experience into words, although some of the spontaneity of sensation had when in contact

with tools and materials is lost. We have both found video and audio recordings to be an

important asset, providing documentation that can be revisited after the event and often

revealing detail that had been missed during the sessions. Of course, video recordings

carry their own challenges: Twigger Holroyd used multiple webcams and separate audio

recorders to capture the informal conversation that occurred throughout a day-long

workshop (example 5). While this created incredibly rich data, transcription was not

straightforward. Furthermore, there is the issue of where to position the camera,

balancing the need to capture the action with the danger of intimidating the participants.

A further challenge arises in terms of analysis: how to make sense of all this data? Of

course, analysis needs to be appropriate to the research questions, and thus we adopted

different strategies. Shercliff was primarily concerned with the ‘micro context’ of

making, and so focused her attention on the physical and visual relationship between the

positioning of the body, tools, stitched motifs and hand movements as well as the spoken

page 16

words. She also used her own making as a means of analysis, sensing what mattered and

drawing out key themes for further exploration. Because Twigger Holroyd was primarily

interested in the participants’ interpretations of their activities, she focused on their

spoken words (or written comments, in the case of example 6), using the physical action

only as the context for the conversations. She analysed these conversations using

thematic coding and a constant comparative method (Robson, 2011), allowing topics to

emerge from the workshop data.

Recommendations

Our main motivation in writing this paper was to offer insights for others considering

making with others as a research method.

In part, the logistics of our projects influenced our decisions to undertake these particular

activities; different timescales, locations, budgets and research interests would have led to

different strategies. We would like to re-emphasise the adaptability and variability of

these methods, and would therefore encourage others to develop and adapt their own

strategies, appropriate to their own particular contexts.

Due to the exploratory nature of participatory practice-based research we have found it

important to plan a structure which addresses the research aims, but is flexible enough to

allow the researcher to learn, adapt and re-focus as the project progresses. For, as one of

the participants in Twigger Holroyd’s research reflected, after her experience of the

similarly open-ended process of re-knitting: You've got to allow for … things to turn out in a surprising way. Because you don't know.

References Bolt, B. (2007). The Magic is in Handling, in: E. Barrett & B. Bolt (eds) Practice As

Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. London: I. B. Tauris. pp. 27-34. Bryman, A. (2004) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Freitas, N. (2007). Activating a Research Context in Art and Design Practice, in:

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. July 2007. Vol. 1, no. 2.

de Waal, E. (2002). Altogether Elsewhere: The Figuring of Ethnicity, in: P. Greenhalgh (ed) The Persistence of Craft: The Applied Arts Today. London: A&C Black. pp.185-194.

Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and

page 17

Audiences. Abingdon: Routledge. Gray, C. & Malins, J. (2004). Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in

Art and Design. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gray, C. & Burnett, G. (2007). Making Sense: ‘Material’ Thinking and ‘Materializing

Pedagogies’, in: interactiveDiscourse: International Online Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. November/December 2007. Vol. 1, issue. 1.

Marchand, T. (2001). Minaret Building and Apprenticeship in Yemen. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.

Marchand, T. (2009). The Masons of Djenné. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Marchand, T. (2010). Making Knowledge: explorations of the indissoluble relation

between minds, bodies, and environment, in: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute special issue: Making Knowledge. May 2010. Vol. 16, Issue Supplement s1. pp. S1-S21.

Parker, R. ([1984] 2010). The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine. London: The Women’s Press.

Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: a resource social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley.

Rutt, R. (1987). A History of Hand Knitting. London: B.T. Batsford. Sanders, E. B-N. & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the New Landscapes of

Design, in: CoDesign, Vol. 4, issue. 1, pp. 5-18. Stitchlinks (2008). Guide to our theories so far. Retrieved 08 11, 2013, from Stitchlinks:

<http://www.stitchlinks.com/pdfsNewSite/research/Our theories so far New_ unshuffled watermarked_4.pdf>